Smith v. Vaughn

Alabama Court of Appeals

Smith v. Vaughn

89 So. 302, 18 Ala. App. 91, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 78

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 1921

Docket6 Div. 883.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 So. 302 (Smith v. Vaughn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Vaughn, 89 So. 302, 18 Ala. App. 91, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 78 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The'suit was originally brought in the justice court, where recovery was sought on a promissory note. Prom a judgment for plaintiff in that court, defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the trial was had de novo,' by the judge without a jury. In the circuit court plaintiff was allowed, over the objection of defendant, to amend the complaint by adding the, common counts for money loaned, hut it will be unnecessary to notice the objection to this, because the final judgment of the court was upon the count declaring on the note, and no evidence was introduced authorizing a consideration of any other count. Beside the addition of a count claiming for money loaned, growing out of the same transaction, is not a departure.

Under section 1 of the Code of 1907, signature includes mark when the person cannot write, his name being written near it, and witnessed by a person who writes his own name as a witness. There waá evidence to the effect that defendant made her mark, and the note was witnessed by Edna I. Vaughn, the wife of the payee. This was a sufficient attestation, and, if the defendant could not write, was a signature as defined by the statute. Johnson & Co. v. Davis, 95 Ala. 293, 10 South. 911. There being evidence that the defendant -made her m'ark to the note, if she could write, such was an. adoption of the mark as her signature. These were questions of fact for the trial' court, trying the cause without a jury, with every presumption to he indulged by this court as to their correctness.

It was also a question of fact as to whether the debt was that of the husband or wife.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SAMFORD, J.

The'suit was originally brought in the justice court, where recovery was sought on a promissory note. Prom a judgment for plaintiff in that court, defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the trial was had de novo,' by the judge without a jury. In the circuit court plaintiff was allowed, over the objection of defendant, to amend the complaint by adding the, common counts for money loaned, hut it will be unnecessary to notice the objection to this, because the final judgment of the court was upon the count declaring on the note, and no evidence was introduced authorizing a consideration of any other count. Beside the addition of a count claiming for money loaned, growing out of the same transaction, is not a departure.

Under section 1 of the Code of 1907, signature includes mark when the person cannot write, his name being written near it, and witnessed by a person who writes his own name as a witness. There waá evidence to the effect that defendant made her mark, and the note was witnessed by Edna I. Vaughn, the wife of the payee. This was a sufficient attestation, and, if the defendant could not write, was a signature as defined by the statute. Johnson & Co. v. Davis, 95 Ala. 293, 10 South. 911. There being evidence that the defendant -made her m'ark to the note, if she could write, such was an. adoption of the mark as her signature. These were questions of fact for the trial' court, trying the cause without a jury, with every presumption to he indulged by this court as to their correctness.

It was also a question of fact as to whether the debt was that of the husband or wife.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 302, 18 Ala. App. 91, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-vaughn-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack